BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SHIMLA, H.P.
Consumer Complaint No: 201/2007
Date of presentation: 07.07.2007
Date of decision: 22.07.2009
Shri Gangu Ram S/O Shri Dungu Ram,
R/O Village Nakrari, P.O. Jharog,
Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P.
… Complainant.
Versus
1. M/S Sai Automobiles through its
Authorized Signatory,
Authorized dealers for Force Motors Ltd.,
Sales & Service, near Tunnerl, Sanjauli, Shimla, H.P.
2. Indusind Bank Ltd.
Through its Authorised Signatory,
Ist Floor, SCF 23-24, Phase-3-B-2,
Mohali (Punjab).
…Opposite Parties
For the complainant: Mr. S.R. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.1: Mr. Sumit Raj Sharma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.2: Exparte.
O R D E R:
Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President (Oral):- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that he is owner of vehicle Temp-Trax-kargo bearing registration No.HP-03B-591, which was purchased by him from the OP No.1 and was got financed through OP No.2, for a sum of Rs.4.40 lacs. It is averred that the complainant was repaying the loan instalments to the OP No.2, but the OP No.2, took the possession of the aforesaid vehicle on 07.05.2007 on the false ground of non-defrayment of financial liabilities by him to the OP No.2. Hence, it is contended that the action of the OP No.2 in repossessing the vehicle aforesaid, was illegal and unwarranted, as also, it tantamounts to unfair trade practice on its part. Hence this complaint.
2. The OP No.1, in its written version, to the complaint, admitted the fact of having sold the vehicle aforesaid to the complainant. It is denied that any agreement was executed interse the complainant and OP No.1, rather the agreement was executed interse the complainant and OP No.2, with whom the vehicle was financed by the complainant. However, the OP No.2 did not put in appearance before this Forum despite service, hence, was, ordered to be proceeded against exparte.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.1, and, have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case meticulously.
4. The complainant is aggrieved by the act of the financier in retaking the possession of the vehicle from the complainant, purportedly on the ground of timely non-defrayment of loan instalments to the OP No.2. The OP No.2 did not despite service, put in appearance nor filed any reply to the complaint, to rebut the averments as raised in the complaint, hence, truth is to be attributed to the averments made in the complaint regarding timely defrayment by the complainant to the OP No.2, all outstanding financial liabilities.
5. Nonetheless, in the interest of justice, it is thought fit, that, the complainant, shall, in, case some default in the defrayment of some loan instalments by him to the OP No.2, has occurred, then, he, shall, furnish an undertaking to the OP No.2 to defray such outstanding financial liabilities within a period of three months. The undertaking shall also contain a recital that he shall not commit default in the payment of any of further outstanding loan instalments. On such undertaking being furnished by the complainant, to the OP No.2, the later, shall, release the vehicle, after, the entire arrears of loan instalments in compliance with the undertaking is defrayed by the OP to it. With these directions, the complaint stands disposed of accordingly. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
Announced on this, the 22nd day of July, 2009.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
President.
NMehta) (Karuna Machhan) (Charanjit Singh)
Member Member.